While I certainly think there are no absolutes in sexuality, Cynthia Nixon is also bisexual. So in her case, she can and does choose whether or not her partner is same sex or opposite sex. Making a blanket statement about being "gay" being a choice, however, is problematic in my opinion.

For me and many others, there was no choice involved.

Lots of the commenters seem to be behind her in thinking being gay is more of a choice than gay people would like the world to believe. I have some thoughts on this, you?

Gay fans might have applauded Cynthia Nixon's decision to come out in 2004, but her remarks in a controversial new interview might now leave them feeling a little incensed.

Asked about skeptics who question the legitimacy of her relationship with longtime partner Christine Marinoni, the "Sex and the City" star, who is currently promoting her new Broadway show "Wit," told The New York Times:

"I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not."
Nixon then went on to note:

"Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with."

Prior to her relationship with Marinoni, an education activist, Nixon was involved with English professor Danny Mozes, with whom she has two children.

America Blog writer John Aravosis was among those to criticize Nixon's choice of words. "It's not a 'choice,' unless you consider my opting to date a guy with brown hair versus a guy with blonde hair a 'choice,'" he writes. "It's only a choice among flavors I already like... every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights."

Cynthia Nixon should just say she's bi and be done with it. I wonder, did she choose to be bi?

Click to expand...

As we all know Superpowers aren't a choice.

Real bisexuals have the following superpowers (You know, like X-men ):

1)Ability to make everyone jealous and horny at the same time
2)Superpower of wanting to sleep with everyone except you
3)Superpower of annoying straights and gays in equal measure
4)Tendency to mouth off when someone gives them ****
5)The ability to eat Taco while being stuffed.

If they lack one of the above superpowers or favour BBQ ripple ice cream, then they are a fake bisexual.

There is nothing wrong with it being a choice, but it isn't a choice for everyone. Woah, big surprise that things aren't black and white. Anyway, it seems to me that people who choose to regularly be with a particular sex are really bisexuals who, for whatever reasons, prefer the sex they've chosen to be with.

As I said, I think her statement applies to her because she's bisexual. So if she met two people she was attracted to, one male, one female, she could theoretically choose to be with the female. I don't think it's the same thing as choosing to be gay, and I think her blanket statement doesn't apply to people that are gay and not bisexual.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a case somewhere in the world of a person who is gay claiming that they 100% chose to be gay and could be heterosexual if they wanted to be, but I've never met a single one. I think her statement is false way more than it's ever true.

More importantly, I think her statement does more harm than it does good, given the details of her personal life and also the state of gay rights in this country.

As I said, I think her statement applies to her because she's bisexual. So if she met two people she was attracted to, one male, one female, she could theoretically choose to be with the female. I don't think it's the same thing as choosing to be gay, and I think her blanket statement doesn't apply to people that are gay and not bisexual.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a case somewhere in the world of a person who is gay claiming that they 100% chose to be gay and could be heterosexual if they wanted to be, but I've never met a single one. I think her statement is false way more than it's ever true.

More importantly, I think her statement does more harm than it does good, given the details of her personal life and also the state of gay rights in this country.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. Blanket statements are almost always wrong. Unfortunately, anti-gay idiots will use this as 'proof' that sexuality is always choice, which is of course false. I have always maintained, though, that the choice argument is a red herring, as it is completely irrelevant to the issues of gay (human) rights. The problem is that a lot of people find it much easier to hate someone for their choices than for something they have no control over.

I completely agree with you. Blanket statements are almost always wrong. Unfortunately, anti-gay idiots will use this as 'proof' that sexuality is always choice, which is of course false. I have always maintained, though, that the choice argument is a red herring, as it is completely irrelevant to the issues of gay (human) rights. The problem is that a lot of people find it much easier to hate someone for their choices than for something they have no control over.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that being gay is not a choice, period. Cynthia Nixon is bisexual. I have a big problem with her saying that being bisexual is the same as being gay- it's not. Bisexuals have a choice between the sexes, gay people do not. Her insistence of calling herself gay is offensive to me, because she's not gay.

The problem here is that being gay is not a choice, period. Cynthia Nixon is bisexual. I have a big problem with her saying that being bisexual is the same as being gay- it's not. Bisexuals have a choice between the sexes, gay people do not. Her insistence of calling herself gay is offensive to me, because she's not gay.

Click to expand...

Again, I agree here. I mentioned above that I believe that people who 'choose' are bisexuals.

The problem here is that being gay is not a choice, period. Cynthia Nixon is bisexual. Her insistence of calling herself gay is offensive to me, because she's not gay.

Click to expand...

I also completely concur. I am not certain why she muddies the water by bringing choice into any discussion regarding her sexuality when she is very clearly bisexual, and therefore can choose to bed a person from either gender.

A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if its a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesnt matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not."

Click to expand...

This quote drives me batty. The "litmus test" for being gay is being attracted to the same sex. This isn't like when hipsters call themselves "queer" as a political statement when they're not actually gay.

I'm not going to lie, she's bugged me since the first day she came out. I wish there weren't so few out gay celebrities that so much focus is given to those that are.

This quote drives me batty. The "litmus test" for being gay is being attracted to the same sex. This isn't like when hipsters call themselves "queer" as a political statement when they're not actually gay.

I'm not going to lie, she's bugged me since the first day she came out. I wish there weren't so few out gay celebrities that so much focus is given to those that are.

As I said, I think her statement applies to her because she's bisexual. So if she met two people she was attracted to, one male, one female, she could theoretically choose to be with the female. I don't think it's the same thing as choosing to be gay, and I think her blanket statement doesn't apply to people that are gay and not bisexual.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a case somewhere in the world of a person who is gay claiming that they 100% chose to be gay and could be heterosexual if they wanted to be, but I've never met a single one. I think her statement is false way more than it's ever true.

More importantly, I think her statement does more harm than it does good, given the details of her personal life and also the state of gay rights in this country.

Click to expand...

It's her right to have an opinion and if she believes that she is gay and straight, hey, then that's what she believes.

I disagree with you about her statement doing more harm than good. Being forced to toe the party line is never good. Open, honest discussion does more for the cause than sound bites repeated ad nauseum.

I completely agree with you. Blanket statements are almost always wrong. Unfortunately, anti-gay idiots will use this as 'proof' that sexuality is always choice, which is of course false. I have always maintained, though, that the choice argument is a red herring, as it is completely irrelevant to the issues of gay (human) rights. The problem is that a lot of people find it much easier to hate someone for their choices than for something they have no control over.

Click to expand...

This isn't about anti gay bigots. This is about an individual's right to express her opinion. Anything that furthers the discussion in my mind is a good thing. The percentage of people who think that all gays choose to be that way is shrinking so I don't see any point in going back into the closet to satisfy a small percentage of the population.

I disagree with you about her statement doing more harm than good. Being forced to toe the party line is never good. Open, honest discussion does more for the cause than sound bites repeated ad nauseum.

Click to expand...

I meant that her statement will be fuel for those that seek to deprive gay people of certain civil rights, since they likely won't read and understand the full statement. In the context of her bisexuality, her statement is true. When taken as a statement from a gay person, it has a markedly different impact.

I'm all for open, honest discussion, but she also has to be mindful of who she is, what she is saying, and what impact it has on the community she considers herself a part of.

I can't choose to have sex with a woman (the plumbing won't work), so no- that's not true.

Click to expand...

Couldn't it be something along the next lines?:

- At a young age (9-11, maybe even younger) you chose that you prefer men/women. Obviously when you grow up to adulthood you can no longer choose wether to like men or women, you already chose that when you were younger and had lived your life that way for many years.

What makes me think about it not being genetical is that by that logic gay people should tend to decrease with time until eventually they don't no longer exist. Gay couples need to adopt, and so they don't pass on their genes to a next generation. By many generations (hundred of years), wouldn't that particular gene that makes men like men or women like women disappear?

Of course, in the past many gay people were forced by social pressure to marry and have kids, and so maybe what I said above doesn't applies right now. But in the future, would it apply?

- At a young age (9-11, maybe even younger) you chose that you prefer men/women. Obviously when you grow up to adulthood you can no longer choose wether to like men or women, you already chose that when you were younger and had lived your life that way for many years.

What makes me think about it not being genetical is that by that logic gay people should tend to decrease with time until eventually they don't no longer exist. Gay couples need to adopt, and so they don't pass on their genes to a next generation. By many generations (hundred of years), wouldn't that particular gene that makes men like men or women like women disappear?

Of course, in the past many gay people were forced by social pressure to marry and have kids, and so maybe what I said above doesn't applies right now. But in the future, would it apply?

Click to expand...

I can assure you that I never made a choice to be gay. Not at 9, not at 13, not at 19. Never.

Did you make a conscious choice to be heterosexual?

And as far as children - I can also assure you that not all gay couples need to adopt. I carried and gave birth to my 2 children.

I meant that her statement will be fuel for those that seek to deprive gay people of certain civil rights, since they likely won't read and understand the full statement. In the context of her bisexuality, her statement is true. When taken as a statement from a gay person, it has a markedly different impact.

I'm all for open, honest discussion, but she also has to be mindful of who she is, what she is saying, and what impact it has on the community she considers herself a part of.

Click to expand...

Until science can provide absolute, without a doubt proof that being gay is something we're born with, we're going to have to put up with those who would stone us. Not only that, but there are a lot of us who aren't all that certain where those urges came from.

I agree that her statement will only add fuel to the fire of right wing, religious zealots, but I also believe that enough progress has been made that we can allow those among us who have questions to voice their dissent.

She has the right to say what she wants. She shouldn't have to be looking over her shoulder, afraid that she'll offend someone with her opinion.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.